ARSH BARI Vs. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Civil Revision is directed against order dtd. 19/2/2016 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Dehradun in O.S. No. 374 of 2009, Himalayan Drug Company v. Azhar Mohammed and others, whereby the application paper no. 244 C filed by the revisionist under order 9 Rule 7 of The Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) has been dismissed.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that respondent no. 1 Company filed a suit against Azhar Mohammed, predecessor-in-interest of the revisionist, and proforma respondents for a decree of mandatory injunction, prohibitory injunction and recovery of damages in respect of the property in suit. Said suit was registered as O.S. No.374 of 2009.

(3.) Defendant no.1 appeared before the trial court and he filed his written statement. Summon were also issued to other defendants i.e. defendant nos.2 to 7, but the same were not served. Steps were also not directed to be taken to serve the defendants through registered post. The respondent no.1 moved an application before the trial court seeking permission for substituted service by way of publication, which was allowed by the court and straightaway the plaintiff/respondent no.1 was permitted to take steps for effecting service upon defendant nos.2 to 7 through publication in a in daily local newspaper. Despite service through publication, defendant nos. 2 to 7 did not appear before the trial court and thus the suit was proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dtd. 4/8/2011.